The creation of new spaces of heterotopia by the migrants' and refugees' solidarity movement in Athens

(1)

(2)

1 | P a g e

Source of the image in the cover page:

Panagiotis Maidis (2015, September 28). Anarchists Have Taken Over a Building in Athens to

House Refugees Vice [online] Available at:

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/xd7vj4/anarchists-have-taken-over-a-building-in-athens-to-house-refugees-876

. [Accessed 25/06/2017]

(3)

2 | P a g e

The creation of new spaces of heterotopia by the migrants’ and refugees’

solidarity movement in Athens

GSSS

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

MASTER HUMAN GEOGRAPHY

Thesis

2017, June 26

Sofia Ntaliou -11176342-

sofida.v@gmail.com

Supervisor:

Virginie Mamadouh

Second Assessor:

Inge van der Welle

(4)

(5)

4 | P a g e

Table of figures

Figure 1: Squats of Athens ... 27

Figure 2: Squats of Thessaloniki ... 27

Figure 3: Emergency response sites in Attica ... 43

Group of Figures 1: Exarchia ... 50

Group of Figures 2: Social Center for Migrants ... 53

Group of Figures 3: El Chef ... 53

Group of Figures 4: Dervenion 56 ... 55

Group of Figures 5: The building of Notara after the attack ... 56

Group of Figures 6: Notara ... 57

Group of Figures 7: Mano Aperta ... 59

Group of Figures 8: Hotel Oniro ... 61

Group of Figures 9: 5th School ... 62

Group of Figures 10: 2nd_{school ... 63}

Group of Figures 11: City Plaza ... 65

Tables

Table 1: Asylum Applications according to Eurostat ... 37

Table 2: ‘Irregular immigrant’ according to EU-Turkey agreement ... 41

Table 3: Coding of Interviews ... 94

Table 4: Interview guide ... 95

Table of Maps

Map 1: The route of refugees and migrants ... 45

Map 2: Exarchia neighbourhood and the location of the selected initiatives ... 51

Table of Diagrams

Diagram 1: Arrivals in Mediterranean ... 36

Diagram 2: Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Greece 2000-2015 ... 38

Diagram 3: Nationality of the arrested, 2015 ... 39

Diagram 4: Nationality of the arrested, 2016 ... 39

Diagram 5: Place of capture, 2015 ... 39

(7)

6 | P a g e

Abstract

Greece is the entry point for hundreds of refugees and migrants who try to reach the Western European countries. Most of them cluster at the city of Athens, the capital of Greece, waiting and planning their next move. Their current situation combined with the on-going economic, social and political crisis that Greece faces for years, has turned the city of Athens into an incubator of grievances and resistances. In the neighbourhood of Exarchia in Athens, which is a long-lasting political hub, a solidarity movement emerged, with refugee and migrant housing squats as the most important declaration and implementation of its ideology. In this thesis, I approach the different initiatives of the solidarity movement as places of autonomous geographies of heterotopia that are affecting the territorial, the material and the social level. In this thesis, it is discussed to what extend these spaces achieved social change, proposing that the creation of spaces of heterotopia in Athens case has created spaces of resistance but has also led to the entrapment of the movement in its microsphere preventing it from expanding into a broader struggle which will facilitate social change.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisor, Virginie Mamadouh, for her constructive comments. I am glad I had the privilege of being guided by you through this process. I would also like to thank all the participants of the initiatives who agreed to answer my questions. I consider this thesis being a collaborative work and without their contribution, this result would not have been reached. Finally, this thesis would not be the same without the help of Phevos Simeonidis. Acknowledgements seem inadequate to express your role and presence in each step of this thesis.

(8)

(9)

8 | P a g e

Chapter 1: Introduction

“I think that instead of help[ing] refugees you should help your government not

to make wars in our country. Learn your government [that] refugees don’t need them. If there weren’t the wars nobody would come here.” (R.1

08/05/2017).

The unprecedent refugee influx that Europe has been experiencing during the past few years has dominated the public’s discourse, speaking for a ‘refugee crisis’. Images of refugees and migrants crossing the borders, dying at sea, or living under inhumane conditions, are travelling around the globe. Meanwhile, the governments of the European countries implement different policies, seeking a way of coping with this reality. Policies that include measures such as the closure of the borders. Parallel to this, refugees and activists engage in political actions in favor of immigrant rights, questioning the concept of borders and the sovereignty of the state, creating, as Nicholls and Uitermark (2017) argue, an unexpected phenomenon, since under these circumstances, it would be expected that they remain hidden.

Multiple questions are raised, but this thesis will deal with the solidarity movement, as it is a very captivating topic for research and a topic that the current situation has put in the spotlight of the public and academic discourse. Social movements have gained enormous attention during the past few decades, as the social movements studies have focused through the years on different perspectives of different movements, studying their key features, their goals, their impact, how city affects them and how they affect the city or how they promote broader struggles, what are the conditions which help them to emerge, etc. Prompted by the ongoing discussion for the means of resistance against the policies that are affecting refugees and migrants, and on the quest for the social change deciding factors, the thesis will research to what extend the spaces of heterotopia of the

solidarity movement in Athens achieved social change focusing on the context in which the movement

emerged, on its characteristics and on the creation of new spaces of heterotopia.

Since the 1990s Greece has been one of the main gateways to Europe for refugees and migrants and since the summer of 2015, Athens turned into a temporary gathering point for those waiting to continue their journey towards Europe. Furthermore, the ongoing diverse crisis that the country faces is making it a hub of grievances. The sum of the different local realities has resulted to the rise of anti-immigration sentiments with refugees and migrants being used as a scapegoat. However, countless initiatives have also emerged, such as squats, social canters and neighbourhood assemblies raising a number of concerns about migrants’ rights, the protection of the environment and that of public space, the self-management of space and leisure, etc.

Conducting a research about the solidarity movement is not only relevant to the current ongoing dialogue around the refugee crisis, but also to a broader societal, political and academic one. Primarily, the solidarity movement is considered an example of resistances that occur when people find themselves being oppressed by the national or the international policies. This research is more than topical since multiple countries face internal or external problems with people having to face the oppression that derives from the state. This thesis is concerned more with the history that is made by

(10)

9 | P a g e

those who wish to transform the city by exposing the power games while also approaching alternatively their social, political and ethical relations. Furthermore, the issues that revolve around refugees and immigrants are deeply political as it raises questions about borders and boundaries. In parallel, they present us with an understanding of the relation between ‘us’ and ‘others’, highlighting the ethical side of the subject. Finally, the solidarity movement can be linked to the broader academic dialogue around social movements and how they emerge, develop, collaborate, promote social change and meanwhile, how the different contexts affect them. In this thesis, I approach the different initiatives of the solidarity movement in Athens, and specifically in Exarchia neighbourhood, as spaces of heterotopia and I aim to explore to what extent, they facilitate or entrap social change.

(11)

10 | P a g e

Chapter 2: Geographies of social movements

In this chapter, a theoretical framework will be set out in order to understand the relationship between social movements and social change, the importance of space, and the relationship between heterotopias as places of resistance which facilitate or trap broader struggles aiming to social change. Firstly, the concept of social movement will be presented, discussing the different approaches of what constitutes a social movement. Afterwards, the ability of social movements to bring social change will be discussed, focusing on the importance of space and lastly, the concepts of heterotopia and autonomous geographies will be analysed. Through the theoretical framework the research’ underlying question will be defined.

2.1. Social Movements as a mean to social change

Social movements are associated with social change, but to fully comprehend this connection, we should primarily aim at understanding the ways the system works so as to accept that change is indeed feasible. Therefore, since this is a hard task, and at the same time, it is not the goal of this thesis, Paasi’s (1996) analysis can be of help in establishing a base, before proceeding further into the concept of the social movements. Paasi (1996) argues that the state uses language and rhetoric as means to construct space, boundaries, territories, fictional identities, and imaged communities which “represent the interests of the hegemonic groups of the state, e.g. in the control of education or the

mass media, and ultimately contribute to the maintenance of the capitalist social formation, the accumulation of capital and the exploitation of the working class” (Paasi, 1996:44). Apart from

representing the interest of the hegemonic groups, the “conceptualization of territories as good or

commodities and space of states as absolute entities hypothesizes states and denies large parts of the social world” instigates a dichotomy between ‘we’ and ‘they’ (Paasi, 1996:28).

Thus, the hardest part is to debunk state and the ideologies that are inculcated on people. If for example, we understand that borders are simple human creations as Paasi (1996) argues, and not fixed lines, this can become a convincing factor for the understanding that a human creation can be challenged and eventually reformed. As Gibson - Graham et al. (2013) argue, the capitalist system remains immutable because people do not consider themselves as the ‘makers’ of the economy. However, “our economy is the outcome of the decisions we make and the actions we take" (Gibson-Graham et al., 2013:8). As Gritzas and Kavoulakos (2015:14) argue, the theoretical discussion for the alternative economies can be compared to the two sides of a coin, in which one side represents the realization that “the individual has the power of choice”, while the other illustrates the recognition that choices are limited by the dynamic relations in an individual, family, local, national, and global level, in different ways and intensity. These apply to the economy but furthermore to every single aspect of our lives. Just as the capitalist system is embedded in a variety of institutions and daily routines, so is anti-capitalism (Chatterton, 2010). Consequently, searching for an alternative to capitalism or towards social change, which does not necessarily mean an anti-capitalist approach, does not depend on “big moments of rupture and conflict,” but rather on peoples’ everyday practices (Chatterton, 2010:1207).

Considering these, we can further proceed to social movements as they play a major role in questioning these constructed concepts and dichotomies. Despite the attempts which may have been through the years, it is hard to define social movements such as every social phenomenon. According

(12)

11 | P a g e

to Diani (cited in Della Porta and Diani, 2006:20), social movements are “a distinct social process,

consisting of the mechanisms through which actors engaged in collective action:

• are involved in conflictual relations with clearly identified opponents; • are linked by dense informal networks;

• share a distinct collective identity”

Fuchs (2006) listed the most important characteristics of social movements based on the different definitions, which have been conceptualized through the years. Among these features were the negation of dominant values, institutions, and structures, social change or hopes and wishes for change, collective meanings and values, extra-parliamentary opposition, social problems, and grievances. The characteristics mentioned above distinguish social movements from other collective actions such as organizations, political parties, and special interest groups mainly because they are “networks of distinct organizations and individuals participating in an effort to realize a collective goal

through non-traditional means” (Nicholls, 2008:844). Participants and organizations aim to resources

and strategies to press political authorities (Nicholls, 2008). Rucht (1994, cited in Kavoulakos, 2009) mentions some additional characteristics that distinguish social movements from other collective actions such as the extra-institutional character of actions, the use of protest as the main form of action, the duration and continuity of action, the networks that they establish and the aim of social change.

Social movements traditionally focused on working and national issues, but after 1960 ‘New social movements’ have emerged focusing on matters of lifestyle, like ethics and identity and the struggle of women’s rights. The main difference from the previous social movements was that they did not consider economic change as an overall solution or involve political aspects in every cultural action, but instead, they focused on the creation of cultural ideals and symbolic challenges (Calhoun, 1993; Fuchs, 2006). Their key features include autonomy, politicization of participants’ everyday life and the use of unconventional means.

Concerning the refugee movement, it is important to highlight that refugee and immigrant movements consist social movements “that are motivated, though faced with conditions of poverty

and social and political devastation, by specific stances of freedom and demands for citizenship”

(Mezzadra, 2004, cited in Rygiel, 2011). As a result, citizenship becomes a central concept in the refugee movement. The refugee movement is changing the meaning of citizenship and addresses the right of movement, for example by participating in political community and regardless their status (Cappiali, 2017; Nyers, 2003; Rygiel, 2011). As Rygiel (2011) argues, citizenship is not a membership, and theorizing refugee movement through it draws attention to the self-determination of migrants as political beings through the types of human relations that they create as political and human beings. All this, despite “the popular imagination, media, and government policy [which sees them] as being

something other than political beings (e.g. as victims, criminals, or simply rendered in dehumanized terms as unwanted or dangerous masses or floods)” (Rygiel, 2011:6).

Furthermore, an important issue which many scholars and the refugees or immigrants themselves have criticized, is that social movements tend to represent and speak on behalf of immigrants and refugees, a point that raises the question of whether a refugee movement is by or for refugees. As Nicholls (2013) and Cappiali (2017) found in their researches, refugees accused locals, (that may be activists, left parties or groups and associations) of having a patronizing attitude. Additionally, they accused them of for producing the “otherness”, and for aiming to address their own goals and advance

(13)

12 | P a g e

their power and prestige instead of promoting the self-organization and self-determination of immigrants and refugees. Cappiali (2017:971) in order to describe this attitude introduced the concept of “political racialization” which refers to “a process whereby left-wing actors, in order to legitimize

their work on immigration, have partially included immigrants in the political sphere (by creating, for instance, channels of participation and promoting their representation, see Cappiali 2015), but in a relationship of “ethnic” or “racial” subordination”. Thus, according to Hsia (2008:202), “to ensure the legitimacy of the immigrant movement, it is essential to have active participation of immigrants themselves.”.

2.2. The importance of space

In 1977, Castells attempted to conceptualize a new theory of urban change and conceived the term ‘Urban social movements’ for the new type of social movements that emerged based on the economic, social, cultural and political changes as a general characteristic of advanced capitalism and urban crisis (Novy and Colomb, 2013). He defined urban social movements as “urban oriented

mobilizations that influence structural social change and transform the urban meaning” (Castells,

1983:305) and combine struggles over collective consumption, a search for local cultural identity and action for local political autonomy. Thus, urban social movements can produce a city organized based on the use-values, the autonomous local cultures and the decentralized participatory democracy (Leontidou, 2010; Pruijt, 2007). The most significant contribution of Castell’s work, except providing a definition of urban social movements, is that he put space in the center of his analysis and conceptualized city as a ‘social product’ of different social interests and values. “The control over space

is a major battle in the historical war between people and the state” (Castells, 1983:70).

However, urban social movements changed through the time influenced by global changes. Some authors argue that they shift from a local level to a more globalized one (Mayer, 2006, 2009), while others claim that they remain local using abandoned areas and claiming rights to the city (Hamel et al., 2000; Leontidou, 2006, 2010; Petropoulou, 2010). At first, Castells adopted the distinction between spaces of production and reproduction. Later on according to Nicholls and Uitermark (2017), he focused on the qualities of a city, which create grievances and mobilizations and the fact that, the urban structures, institutions and cultures “conspired to entrap mobilizations localities while taking

their attention away from broader power structures” (Nicholls and Uitermark, 2017). Indeed, in the

last few pages of his book, Castells (1983) wonders why urban movements, why people insist on aiming at the local targets. His answer can be perceived as a pessimistic one as he argues that people do not have any other choice. “The historical actors (social movements, political parties, institutions)

that were supposed to provide the answers to the new challenges at the global level, were unable to stand up to them…So when people find themselves unable to control the world, they simply shrink the world to the size of their community” (Castells, 1983:329).

According to Nicholls and Uitermark (2017), the ‘right to the city’ came to replace the pessimistic view, that urban movements lost their ability to bring structural change in power relations and turned into a government’s extension, with a more optimistic one. Lefebvre conceived the ‘right to the city’ in 1967. The interpretation of this idea creates a different notion of the city eliminating the poverty, social inequality and meanwhile promotes the use value over its exchange one and ‘heals’ the degraded environment (Harvey, 2012; Nicholls and Uitermark, 2017). Questions were included as to how the city should be and whom it should benefit, requiring principles of justice, morality, virtue, and what is good or right (Mudu, 2004; Chatterton, 2010).

(14)

13 | P a g e

However, Nicholls and Uitermark (2017) argue that urban social movements and ‘right to the city’ literature do not concentrate on the role that cities play as environments to boost broader struggles such as immigrants’ rights which are not urban. Social movements theory indicates certain resources which play a role in the emerge of mobilizations such as material resources (money, services) and nonmaterial ones (faith, moral engagement), that some environments might be rich(er) of these resources and that outsiders have to develop relations with the pre-existing actors to use them (Della Porta and Diani 2006; Nicholls and Uitermark, 2017). They argue that the conceptualization of a complementary relationship of place-space is convenient. In their conceptualization, social movements consist “geographically uneven terrains” which means that “certain places are more

propitious for political socialization and activism than others, and places are always shaped by and shaping activists in other spaces and scales through messy and complex relational exchanges” (Nicholls

and Uitermark, 2017:18).

Furthermore, proximity creates ‘hubs’ of enhanced feelings of trust and solidarity while distant networks connect these locally situated hubs and nodes into “highly uneven spatial configurations” (Nicholls and Uitermark, 2017:20). This conceptualization leads to four mechanisms that help movements emerge and promote broader struggles; the aggregating of grievances, the formation of activist clusters, the making of connections between clusters and the formation of hubs as “propulsive

units within a social movement space” (Nicholls and Uitermark, 2017:25). In their analysis space and

networks are in the center. Embracing Castells’ focus on cities, they do too argue that most commonly cities concentrate resources, relational opportunities and consist places where exclusion is legislated turning them into central places for mobilizations, ‘incubators of resistance’ (Nicholls and Uitermark, 2017:8). Hence, studying city’s context is important as it consists the environment where people work and live. People’s environment influences them “how they become politicized, how they mobilize their

resources, what kinds of political opportunities are available to them” (Nicholls and Uitermark,

2017:13).

2.3. Heterotopias and autonomous geographies

The theories of heterotopias and autonomous geographies can be valuable to further understand social movements and particularly in this case, the refugee movement. Foucault conceptualized heterotopias as places where unity is abandoned to celebrate the autonomy of parts while homotopias were conceptualized as the places we live, the ‘real’ and ‘normal’ places where differences are put aside to seek unity (Meininger, 2013). Heterotopias are “counter-sites, a kind of

effectively enacted utopia in which the real sites, all the other real sites that can be found within the culture, are simultaneously represented, contested, and inverted” (Foucault and Miskowiec, 1986:24).

Six principles characterize heterotopias: every culture constitutes heterotopias, their function can change according to society’s changes, they contrast different spaces and sites, they are linked to heterochrony, they are at the same time open and close as they are not accessible similarly to a public space, and lastly, they function in relation to all other spaces, either exposing them or creating another real space “as perfect, as meticulous, as well arranged as ours is messy, ill constructed, and jumbled” (Foucault and Miskowiec, 1986:27). Today’s ‘heterotopias of deviation’ consider those whose behavior deviates in relation to sovereign social standards (Foucault and Miskowiec, 1986). According to Lefebvre’s definition, heterotopias consist social places of possibility in which ‘something different’ arises through the everyday practices (cited in Harvey, 2012).

Heterotopias can be constituted within different contexts, such as prisons, hospitals or institutions for people with intellectual disability. According to Foucault even a cemetery can be considered as such.

(15)

14 | P a g e

However, I chose to approach autonomous geographies as one of the diverse subcategories of heterotopias. Autonomous Geographies are “laboratories for resistance and creation” (Pickerill and Chatterton, 2006:12) in which “people desire to constitute non-capitalist, egalitarian and solidaristic

forms of political, social, and economic organization through a combination of resistance and creation”

(Pickerill and Chatterton, 2006:1). Autonomous geographies’ effect expands in three overlapping levels; the territorial, the material and the social (Chatterton, 2005). They may be localized, but according to Pickerill and Chatterton (2006) they derive from the daily routines, but their impact is affecting multiple scales and levels. The supportive structures, which are created within everyday practices, are the ones that will facilitate the outburst of resistance, but even if this is not achieved the process itself is important with seemingly trifling transfigurations providing hope and creating alternatives in the current system. An important feature of autonomous practices according to Pickerill and Chatterton (2006:11) is the creation and maintenance of loose, ephemeral networks which makes “common to think not of a single movement, but of a ‘movement of movements’ (Mertes

2004)… Such principles are flexible tools rather than dogmas, and are used to guard against the formation of hierarchies, leaders, and centralization of power”.

It is useful now to return again to Paasi’s broader theoretical work and to link it with social movements and autonomous geographies of heterotopia. The refugee movement aids in doing so as it involves broader matters such as borders and the freedom of movement. As Nicholls and Uitermark (2017:3) argue “[w]here there are borders, there are resistances.” As governments enforce localized policies to strengthen their territorial power, they have an effect on people’s everyday lives and thus, borders are not any more “geographically and socially distant” (Nicholls and Uitermark, 2017:4). This proximity ceases the facade of immigrants as ‘a distant other’ (Nicholls and Uitermark, 2017:5). However, the problem is not only the constructed ideologies, which are identifiable when we get closer to them but also the fact that whenever a government decides “upon matters of inclusion and exclusion” such as granting asylum, this turns into “a key element of sovereign power…a moment when the sovereign

state (re)founds its claim to monopolize the political” (Nyers, 2003:1071). If “every politics of border control is an attempt to control the borders of the political” (Mitropoulos and Neilson, 2006, cited in

Rygiel, 2011:7) refugee movement, questions this political. As Nyers (2003:1089) argues, by claiming that no one is illegal, the refugee movement questions “the entire architecture of sovereignty, all its

borders, locks and doors, internal hierarchies, etc.” Moreover, the state and the administrations have

the ability to “disrupt productive relations between activist and supporters in the same city”, and ergo, they intervene in various levels (Nicholls and Uitermark, 2017:10). This has to be acknowledged, mainly by social movements, if there is a will to disrupt the function of –any- state.

Hence, social movements can be considered as means of social change, heterotopias of autonomous geographies, either as independent entities or as elements of a broader movement. Specifically, this means that the autonomous geographies as a subcategory of heterotopias consist places of resistance which can facilitate social change or lead to the entrapment of movements. Combining therefore, the theories of social movements that focus on social change and the theories of heterotopia and autonomous geographies, two primary elements stand out as important factors which can lead the heterotopias of autonomous geographies to facilitate social change or entrap it, which would turn the heterotopias into enclaves. These elements are raising awareness and networking. The existence of critical mass is considered to be of outmost importance, according to the theory of social movements, in order for social change to be attained. Thus, raising awareness indicates that heterotopias will constitute a counterexample that will highlight an alternative for those stranded and entrapped in the current situation. On the other hand, if the individuals or collectives that constitute these heterotopias, stick to the self-reference of their achievements and to the satisfaction that they gain from them –by acknowledging that they live in an alternative system-, these heterotopias cannot lead

(16)

15 | P a g e

to a broader social change, but instead to independent entities and heterotopian enclaves. Meanwhile, as it is mentioned in the theory of movements, closely-attached networks are crucial since they infuse and inspire feelings of trust and facilitate the outburst of resistance. If this is not achieved, as heterotopias tend to construct loose networks, these places risk to turn into enclaves focusing on their own existence, rather to their impact.

Aiming to understand this relationship the research question of this thesis is:

To what extend did the spaces of heterotopia of the solidarity movement in Athens achieve social change regarding the position of migrants in Greece?

Furthermore, in order to answer my research question the following sub-questions have to be addressed:

Which is the context in which the Greek solidarity movement emerged? What are the main characteristics of the solidarity movement in Athens? How did the solidarity movement create new spaces of heterotopia in Athens?

Concluding, in this chapter I explored the literature in a search for answers to how and why social change can be achieved. I directed my attention to the social movements as the mean to social change and the importance of space in their emergence and development. I chose the theory of heterotopias and autonomous geographies in order to unravel the interrelated relation between them and space and to unpack their hidden impact. In line with the theoretical framework I see heterotopias as the mean towards social changeor as the reason for its entrapment and I examine the solidarity movement in Athens hoping to shed light on the geographies of social movements. In the next chapter I will discuss the research design and the methods which were chosen as the most appropriate to answer the research question of the thesis.

(17)

16 | P a g e

Chapter 3: Methodology

This chapter aims to justify the choices which were made in order to increase validity of the research. Primarily, it will be discussed the ontological and epistemological considerations of this project and the research design and the methods which were chosen as the most appropriate to answer the research question. Furthermore, the ethical implications will be discussed, as also my positionality, the limitations that were faced during the research and some basic concepts will be clarified. Finally, it will be presented the structure of the thesis.

3.1. Ontological and Epistemological considerations

The ontological consideration of this project lies on idealism, on the idea that reality is not independent of how people perceive the world and the socially constructed meanings (Ritchie et al., 2014:5). The epistemological position of this thesis, which I base on the interpretive frame since it emphasizes the importance of people’s perspectives in their living contexts, followed the “retroduction” approach of Blaikie (cited in Ritchie et al., 2014:6). This method is more suitable as it allowed me to use existing theory to plan and design the study, develop a sampling procedure, and create fieldwork tools, but finally, the findings were processed and evaluated in the context of pre-existing theories and subsisting knowledge (Ritchie et al., 2014:22). As far as the relationship between researcher and researched concerns, the ‘empathic neutrality’ can best describe my aim while conducting this research, due to recognizing that a researcher cannot be value-free but should seek to be as neutral as possible and avoid any bias. Thus, it was attempted to be reflexive about the role and the influence of my beliefs and behaviors during the research process.

3.2. Research Design and Methods

The qualitative research method was chosen to answer my research question as it notes as an essential element the in-depth understanding of participants’ social world. This approach is fitting for my thesis as interviewees’ views, perceptions and understanding play an influential role in the outcome, considering, that to identify a movement, the very participants have to identify themselves as part of it. Moreover, qualitative research aims to include new information on the subject. Specifically, I conducted a case study of the solidarity movement in Athens, as according to Yin (2009:18) “A case study is an empirical inquiry that

• investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context, especially

when

• the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident”

This method is the most appropriate one to answer my research question as I seek to explain to what extend the spaces of heterotopia of solidarity movement -a modern phenomenon- achieved social change regarding the position of migrants in Greece. The contemporary character of the phenomenon provides the chance to apply direct observation and interviews of the persons who are involved (Yin, 2009:11). Accordingly, an ‘in-depth’ description of the phenomenon and its context, which are interrelated, with their links have to be traced over time. The city’s context is also important, as social movements cannot be fully understood without apprehending the “lived geographies of people” (Nicholls and Uitermark, 2017:13).

Athens was chosen as the area of research since it is an incubator of diverse kinds of grievances and social movements and as a result, an attractive context for research. Greece from 2008 and onwards,

(18)

17 | P a g e

faces a financial crisis, which has developed into a political and societal one, a crisis of lack of trust to institutions, the unions, and the political parties. In May 2010, the Greek government signed the first memorandum with IMF, ECB and EU and the austerity measures that followed remodelled people’s everyday lives. However, cities and particularly Athens have become grounds of solidarity, of collectivity, cooperativity, and resistance. Hundreds of social movements have emerged, with different aims, models of organization and means of action. Meanwhile, Greece faces an unprecedented refugee and migrants’ influx, and its government seems unable to cope with the situation. Grassroots, individual initiatives and NGOs act on behalf of the state and provide first aid services. As the administration commences its first coordinated actions, such as building refugee camps, refugees, migrants, and activists respond by setting up the first refugee and migrants’ housing squats and establishing their networks and services. Parallel to all this, anti-immigration sentiments dominate the public opinion. The far-right party of Golden Down obtains more support, intensifies this anti-immigration rhetoric and promotes physical attacks to non-natives or whoever seems as a non-native, using refugees and migrants as the scapegoat for the country’s problems.

Furthermore, Athens can be considered a fruitful case study for social movements’ studies according to the time perspective. The contemporary character of the phenomenon provided the chance to explore the on-going processes which most of the times are contemplated from a historical point of view. Conclusively, Athens was selected due to my personal engagement with the city that in some cases provided me with an easier access to the field and an ongoing will to contribute to change the vision of the city. The neighbourhood of Exarchia was chosen mainly because studying a specific neighbourhood provides practical conveniences for the research of such initiatives and secondly, because Exarchia has been a political hub for years, while now it becomes a district where numerous refugee and migrant squats and initiatives are emerging.

Even if my research on its own, based on one case study, does not provide the opportunity for generalization and more case studies have to be conducted, my findings combined with other examinations can contribute to this path. For example, Nicholls and Uitermark’s (2017) case studies have some similarities but also great differences with Athens. Athens seems to concentrate a critical mass of refugees, migrants, activists and organizations which can be compared to the favourable mobilizing environments of Los Angeles, Paris and Amsterdam. Furthermore, Athens seems to share the same “laissez-faire” government as Los Angeles. In contrast with Amsterdam’s case, the movement of Athens has not spread to the urban periphery or if so its main core is concentrated in Exarchia neighbourhood. Furthermore, it is expected that despite the “laissez-faire” government, Athens’ movement will look to be as Paris’ movement which lacked of coordination and coherence in order to turn into a broader struggle and achieve social change regarding the migrants’ rights. However, Athens differs significantly from the above-mentioned cases as firstly, the movement regards refugees and not only migrants which raises demands beyond the national scope, secondly, Athens faces multidimensional grievances due to the on-going crisis, and lastly, based on the Greek history NGOs have never been conceived as allies by the movements’ part.

My unit of analysis was the solidarity movement, but the case study is characterized as ‘embedded’ due to the involvement of subunits, which are the different actors and groups that form the solidarity movement. I followed a purposive sampling form, combined with snowball sampling afterwards (Bryman, 2012: 422, Small, 2009). By choosing purposive sampling, the initiatives were strategically selected to have a direct reference to the research question (Bryman, 2012: 418). This means that the groups and initiatives, which can be marked as social movements based on Diani’s (cited in Della Porta and Diani, 2006:20) definition, were selected. That is, actors engaged in actions to promote social

(19)

18 | P a g e

change as far as refugee’s and migrants’ issues are concerned, linked by networks to exchange resources for this common goal while sharing a collective identity under the common purpose including the mutual commitment to address refugees’ and migrants’ issues. After the selection of the initiatives, interviews were conducted with their participants based on their willingness to participate in the research. Snowball sampling was also resourceful as the interviewees could recommend other interviewees participating to the selected collectivities or other groups which could be included in the research.

It is important here to highlight that the selection of the initiatives does not aim to downgrade the contribution of the rest of the collectives, but taking into consideration the volatility of such initiatives and the limited time available, the selection was also made based on their willingness to participate in the research.

The initiatives selected for the empirical research were classified into three main categories. Primarily, focusing on refugee and migrant housing squats as the most effective declaration of the movement’s ideology, all public squats in the wider area of Exarchia were included. The existing squats were found through Internet research and the information that was gathered from the interviewees. Small or non-public squats were not included to avoid exposure, respecting their choice. At the moment, there are 13 squats. Notara 26, City Plaza, 5th school, 2nd school/Jasmine School, Hotel Oniro, Ypourgeio/Axarnon 22, Single men/Araxovis 44, Spirou Trikoupi 17, Kaniggos 22, Themistokleous 58, Dervenion 56, Cyclopi, and Platypous. Some of these projects, even if they are considered to be squats, maintain a good relationship with the owners of the building as they were allowed to use it. Furthermore, not all of the above-mentioned 13 squats are included in the research as some of them became public recently or the activists did not want to participate in the research or an interview was not arranged due to the limited available time. Thus, the interviews also regard former participants of squats who agreed to participate or individuals who are part of more than one squat. Finally, it is important to mention that not all interviews are drawn on in an overt way in the body of the thesis, nor the casual conversations with many different people which however helped to put the information into context. The quotes used in the thesis are also presented in footnotes in their original form in Greek.

Thus, the research includes the squats of ‘Notara’, ‘City Plaza’, ‘5th_{School’, ‘2}nd_{School/Jasmine school’,}

‘Hotel Oniro’, ‘Ypoyrgeio/Axarnon 22’, ‘Single Men/Araxovis 44’ and ‘Dervenion 56’. For the squats of ‘Kaniggos 22’, ‘Themistokleous 58’ and ‘Spirou Trikoupi 17’ a small description will be made based on secondary data, from the internet and the participants of the other squats. The squats of ‘Cyclopi’1

and ‘Platypous’ were not included in the research as they have not published their actions. Even though they cannot be considered part of the research and no further conclusions can be made it is important to be mentioned as they are part of the movement that emerged.

The second category regards initiatives that do not provide housing but different services such as food, legal support and education. In order to choose these initiatives, four basic criteria were made. They had to be self-managed, bottom-up initiatives, acting for refugees and migrants in a collaboration with the squats. Except from the initial online search, these initiatives were evinced by the squats. According to their will to participate in the research the initiatives which are included in the research are the ‘LGBTQI+refugees’, ‘Edusquats’, ‘Mano Aperta’, ‘Solidarity health workers’, ‘No borders’, ‘Social Center for migrants’ and ‘El Chef’ which is also a team of Social Center for migrants.

1_{The only public information for Cyclopi squat is that it consists an open place to people who Cyclopi}

occupation is a space open to people who “have socialized as women, transsexuals, intersex, or even people

(20)

19 | P a g e

The third category regards people who could be helpful giving an insight on the refugee issue and the movement but could not be included to the previous categories. The ones who agreed to participate in the research are Giorgos Kandylis(Greek: Γιώργος Κανδύλης) , an academic and researcher, Lefteris Papagiannakis (Greek: Λευτέρης Παπαγιαννάκης), the Deputy Mayor of Migration in Athens, Apostolos Veizis(Greek: Απόστολος Βεΐζης), head of Medical Operational Support Unit at Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF from now on) in Greece, and the ‘Greek Forum for refugees’.

The data collection methods, which were used, are semi-structured interviews with activists and participants in various groups of the solidarity movement and a limited participant observation regarding the limited available time. Moreover, written sources were used to gather information, including archives, documents, manifestos, newspaper articles, websites, policy papers and academic articles, which combined with the interviews, provided information for the ‘birth’ of the movement, its development, and its impact but also about the city’s context.

Overall, 21 interviews were conducted, 2 of which are from refugees and migrants and 2 of them from foreign solidarians. The interviews were conducted in Greek and, in some cases, in English when it concerned international solidarians or refugees. As most of the interviewees were solidarians, this can create bias in the results as solidarians can exaggerate the positive impact of their efforts or play a representational role for refugees and migrants needs. Consequently, a detailed description of the study population and settings, an interview guide and the method of analysis, will follow to ensure trustworthiness.

The semi-structured interviews included 24 questions that were reformed during the fieldwork and they included specific topics that had to be covered but they also provided some flexibility for the interviewees to develop their thoughts and opinions. The interviews were informal in tone which helped to loosening the formality of researcher and researched and to explore new issues that come up during the interviews. The topics were organized into a logical sequence that facilitated the participant (Boeije, 2010) and regarded their opinion about the refugees and migrants’ issue, the solidarity movement and the initiative in which they participated (Table 3 in the Appendix). The questions were slightly changed for the third category of interviews as it considered mostly people who are not part of such initiatives. In the case of the Deputy Mayor of Migration two questions were added what is the role of the municipality and what is their opinion about the solidarity movement and particularly the squats.

The type of qualitative data that were produced from the above research method is field notes, interviews and documents from the initiatives, stakeholders, newspapers, and websites. The chosen method of analysis was a combination of deductive and inductive approach as the theory of social movements, heterotopias, and autonomous geographies provided information on how a city context can boost the emergence of social movements, the different aims, and their outcomes, but the research aimed to provide further insights on the issue. As semi-structured interviews were utilized as the primary method of data collection, coding was used to process them.

3.3. Ethics

As ethical implications2_{are important in qualitative research, the first goal was to maintain the}

confidentiality of records. For the identities and records of individuals to remain confidential and to

2_{According to Diener and Crandall (1978, cited in Bryman, 2012: 135) ethical principles in social research can}

be divided in four main areas:

(21)

20 | P a g e

ensure that individuals will not be identified or are not identifiable, the interviews were encoded and referred as such in the text except if it was stated otherwise (Table 3 in the Appendix), as it is in the case of Lefters Papagiannakis (Greek: Λευτέρης Παπαγιαννάκης), Giorgos Kandylis (Greeks: Γιώργος Κανδύλης) and Apostolos Veizis (GreekL Απόστολος Βεΐζης). The code of each interview consists of the initials of every initiative and the date when the interview took place. The interviews of the refugees include refugees from two different squats, but to assure their anonymity, they were encoded as refugee 1 and refugee 2 without mentioning the squat’s name. Furthermore, the participants were informed with adequate information about the nature of the research, what was expected of them and how the anonymity would be guaranteed. The sample regards mostly men but this was the result of the snowball sampling, and it does not indicate that more male individuals participate in the solidarity movements. Specifically, the composition of each initiative is different, and most of the interviewees stated that there is an equal number of women and men participating. The table of coding in the appendix includes more details about the study population and the setting.

3.4. Positionality

Finally, in qualitative research it is important to consider the researcher’s positionality. During the interviews, I tried to keep an awareness of my positionality and practice a degree of reflexivity. I grew up in a suburb of Athens from where I left when I was 18 to study in another city of Greece. When I was 21 years old I moved to Thessaloniki to continue my studies. In Thessaloniki, I started exploring different autonomous spaces and I became interested in squatting. That was when I decided to contact my thesis in self-managed social centers in Thessaloniki and merge my two passions, for research and autonomous spaces, into one. When I finished my studies and returned to Athens in 2015, I got involved with the refugee issue helping in Peiraias port. Thus, my positionality as a white-Greek solidarian woman, combined with the asset of the language helped to have a better access as far as the locals solidarians concern and to have a better understanding of the Greek situation. However, the fact that I currently live in Amsterdam for my master degree and I have not participated in any of the refugee squats in Athens was interpreted as an obstacle by some solidarians and refugees/migrants who saw me as an outsider. My role as member of an official institution, the University of Amsterdam, played a dual role. On the one hand, some solidarians saw me as part of the system and consequently as an outsider, while others perceived it as an asset as I was not part of a Greek institution. As far as the refugees and migrants concern, the language barrier was also an important obstacle as most of them did not speak English or Greek and I did not speak their language. Furthermore, as a European citizen and the privileges that comes with it, I could only approach some issues as an outsider without a real understanding of refugees’ situation. Finally, due my commitment to political activism I have had to reflect my positionality in order to stand critically towards the movement but also to use theory in a way that does not place hierarchy between theory and praxis and academics and activists.

3.5. Limitations

One of the most important limitations that it was faced during the fieldwork was the limited available resources. The limited available time resulted to a partial participant observation which would be needed to deeply understand and gain insight into the processes which occur in the groups. Furthermore, this thesis aimed to include refugees and migrants in the research as their perspective and insight is the most important one, but due to the limited time combined with the lack of resources

• whether there is a lack of informed consent • whether there is an invasion of privacy • whether deception is involved.

(22)

21 | P a g e

such as translators, the language barrier and the unwillingness of migrants and refugees to participate led to insufficient number of refugee and migrants’ interviews. This can also be considered as the result of my positionality as a Greek who has not been part of their squat or initiative, which made refugees and migrants perceive me as an outsider. However, these two interviews will be included in the research as they highlight important aspects and can trigger further research on the issue. Moreover, English was a second language for the refugees, which limited their ability to accurately and thoroughly describe their opinion and experience. Another limitation of the research was that the network analysis was based on participants’ answers. As networks seek collaboration with initiatives located outside Athens, if more time and resources were available, it would be more productive to double check them through participant observation and interviews with the other groups. Finally, the interviews were conducted from late March to May 2017. During this period, the refugee housing squats were on high alert, as evacuations were taking place, or rumors of evacuations were spreading, something that produced another limitation for this research as the solidarians were concerned with different matters and there was a high-level feeling of suspiciousness. It is also important that a lot of participants mentioned fatigue as another deterrent factor to participate in the interviews due to overexposure of some initiatives and the publicity that they are facing.

3.6. Clarification of concepts

There is a huge discussion around what term is more appropriate to be used, refugees or migrants, as not all people who cross the borders do qualify only for the one or the other category. According to UNESCO (n.d.), migrants are “all cases where the decision to migrate is taken freely by the individual

concerned, for reason of ‘personal convenience’ and without intervention of an external compelling factor” categorizing them into temporary labour migrants/guest workers/overseas contract workers,

highly skilled and business migrants, irregular migrants/undocumented/illegal migrant, forced migration, family members/family reunion/family reunification migrants and return migrants. According to UNHCR (2016) refugees are “persons fleeing armed conflict or persecution”. The 1951 Refugee Convention identifies refugees as anyone “who fear[s] of being persecuted for reasons of race,

religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country” (UNHCR, 2016). On the other hand, it defines migrants as the ones who “choose to move not because of a direct threat of persecution or death, but mainly to improve their lives by finding work, or in some cases for education, family reunion, or other reasons. Unlike refugees who cannot safely return home, migrants face no such impediment to return. If they choose to return home, they will continue to receive the protection of their government” (UNHCR, 2016). It also emphasizes that this

distinction is important as countries treat migrants according to the regional immigration laws while they have to treat refugees according to national and international laws (UNHCR, 2016).

Furthermore, different actors have entered this discussion as media outlets, individuals or solidarians to refugees and migrants. Al Jazeera, a media outlet, has announced that they will only use the word refugee as the word migrant “strips suffering people of voice” (Malone, 2015). On the other hand, Hector Uniacke, an editor and solidarian in the squats in Athens, argues that this distinction consists “an ideological diagnosis and the word refugee is depoliticing” (Uniacke, 2016). His argument is based on the fact that refugees are seen as victims, as suffering people who need aid, and Europe tries to segregate them, removing their political identity. As he argues, in camps there is a hierarchy between helper and victim, an enhancing feeling of powerlessness and dependence. The difference with the term migrant is that while refugee term has an “obscured” relationship to labour market, migrant is a

(23)

22 | P a g e

political term which includes the relationship to labour and capital. As Lafazani (2016) argues, the distinction of people between “refugees” and “migrants” consists a political constructed identity, which changes and varies according to the circumstances. This distinction transfers the responsibility for the reasons of migration from the dominant political and economic choices to, the subjects that migrate (Lafazani, 2016).

The interviewees tend not to distinguish the people according to their legal status; thus, they use both terms (refugee Greek: πρόσφυγας, migrants Greek: μετανάστης) to address the people who cross the borders or they use the term migrant in order to highlight the class dimension of the issue. While this thesis acknowledges the importance of this distinction, its aim is to study the movement that emerged for the people crossing the borders, regardless of their official status, therefore, both terms will be used except if it is stated otherwise from the interviewees themselves.

Another important clarification has to be made for the term NGO. In Greece, officially there are not NGOs. Legally there are A.M.K.E. (translation: urban non-profit companies, Greek: αστική μη κερδοσκοπική εταιρεία), unions and clubs. However, most people address all such organizations as NGOs (non-profit or non-governmental organizations, Greek: ΜΚΟ). Thus, this thesis adopted the term NGO for all the official organizations without aiming to divide them according to their actual legal status.

Following Chapter 4 will firstly introduce the history of the anarchist movement in Greece and it will outline the general and the immediate context in which the solidarity movement emerged, that is the socio-political and economic environment in Greece and the refugee ‘crisis’ which started on summer of 2015. The context in which the solidarity movement emerged contributes to a better understanding of the factors which facilitated to its emergence, of the importance of place and of the particular characteristics of the movement which will be presented in Chapter 5. Chapter 5 will present empirical materials related to the different initiatives emerged in Exarchia neighbourhood and the features characterizing the solidarity movement arguing that it consists a heterogenous body. Chapter 6 will present empirical materials related to the creation of new spaces of autonomous geographies of heterotopia. It will be argued that these heterotopias consist places of resistance affecting the territorial, material and social level. Finally, the last chapter of conclusions will summarize the main outcomes of the research and answer the research question of the thesis, arguing that in the case of Athens, the new places of heterotopia has led to the entrapment of the movement.

(24)

(25)

24 | P a g e

Chapter 4: The Greek context about the solidarity movement

In order to further understand the current situation in Greece and the movement that emerged due to the refugee influx, a brief historical description is necessary. In this chapter, firstly, it will be described the history of the anarchist-anti-authoritarian movement in Greece since 1974, which goes hand in hand with the squatting movement, alongside a general overview of the important events of this period. This description does not aim to be an extended report but to give a general overview of the circumstances that led to the current situation. Secondly, the chapter will discuss the ‘crisis’ context in which the solidarity movement emerged describing the refugee influx of the summer of 2015 and the state’s response. The anarchist movement has played an important role to the emergence of the solidarity movement, as the know-how of previous struggles facilitated the current characteristics of the movement. Moreover, the context highlights the importance of space and its relation with movements.

4.1. The anarchist movement and the socio-political & economic environment in

Greece

Social movements and self-managed spaces in Greece have followed a different route compared to the international experience. New types of social movements and especially squatting movement did not emerged in Greece or did not emerged as in other countries due to the social, economic and cultural conditions in Greece, such as the nuclear structure of Greek family, the illegal building, the loopholes in the legislation, the large number of private ownership, the parties which dominated the political life, the civil society which did not develop and the ‘clientelist’ relations between parties and citizens (Alithinos, 2013; Kavoulakos, 2009; Souzas, 2014). As a result, we can say that there was not a huge housing problem as solutions could be found in one way or another. Thus, two types of squats appeared. The first one is squats based on ‘spontaneous’ urbanization, but they cannot be considered as part of the squatting movement as they did not include a particular ideology and they did not question the private ownership (Leontidou, 2010; Souzas, 2014). The second one is squats which had a radical political character, operating as self-managed social centers, advocating the self-organization of everyday life and ideas and practices of anti-authoritarian space, opposing to the consuming life model and promoting solidarity relationships (Souzas, 2014).

The first signs of the anarchist ideology in Greece can be traced back to the 19th century when few scattered publications about anarchism appeared, and few anarchist groups and newspapers emerged in different Greek cities (Souzas, 2014). However, the political and social circumstances of this period such as the Greek military junta/dictatorship of 1967-74 did not let these ideas to flourish (Souzas, 2014). This does not mean that anarchists did not exist even in the years of the dictatorship or before that, but surely we cannot speak for a movement. Thus, this description concerns the modern history of Greece, after the dictatorship when the anarchist movement began to develop.

The first years after the dictatorship a movement into process started to make its appearance with its members identifying themselves as anarchists and anti-authoritarians influenced by the Italian autonomy, the Situationist International, the philosopher Kastoriadis, the American ‘movement’ and later the events of ’68 (Souzas, 2014). The anarchists of this period were few, more like an affinity group and spatially marginalized to areas such as Plaka and Exarchia in Athens (Souzas, 2014). Their marginalization resulted due to their opposition to parliamentary democracy (as a liberal oligarchy of the capitalist sovereignty), which was paradoxically compared to the general feeling of consensus,

(26)

25 | P a g e

which characterized these years (Souzas, 2014; Kitis, 2015). As a result, their marginalization followed their political delegitimization and the criminalization of their activity (Souzas, 2014).

First Period

The next few years, anarchists became more visible in the public sphere participating in demonstrations and since the ‘80s a new period starts for the Greek movements. The ’80s meant the beginning of punk rock in Greece that had a strong connection with the anarchists of this period (Kitis, 2015). Punk was linked to the opposition against the state, the police and the official institutions, the Church, the family, and patriarchy (Kitis, 2015). However, the ‘80s were also characterized by the state repression (Souzas, 2014). In this decade, PA.SO.K. (Panhellenic Socialist Movement, Greek: Πανελλήνιο Σοσιαλιστικό Κίνημα), a social democratic party (the first social democratic party in power after the dictatorship and the right conservative party of New Democracy-N.D. from now on) came in power adopting a rhetoric with concepts historically used by anarchism such as the self-organization (Souzas, 2014). The first years in power, PA.SO.K.. applied policies in favor of people, but it quickly shifted towards harsh measures and to a more right-wing approach (Meriziotis, 2015). Heroin was a harsh reality in Exarchia which made the media represented the neighbourhood as the center of criminality and threatened the image that movements tried to represent (Souzas, 2014). PASOK followed a policy of repression with police controls and arrests in Exarchia targeting mostly punks (Souzas, 2014).

The first period of the squats’ history in Greece starts in October 1981 when the first squat appears in Valtetsiou Street in Exarchia. It is worth noting that there were other squats before ‘Valtsetsiou’ but this was the first one aiming to the rehabilitation of everyday life and the free expression (Souzas, 2014). Other squats also appeared in the same period and with the similar ideological background in other neighbourhoods of Athens, in Thessaloniki and Crete (Alithinos, 2013; Ioannidis, n.d.; Souzas, 2014). Nevertheless, these squats were abandoned in short time due to the state’s repression, bad publicity from the media, internal problems and lack of experience. People with international experience in squats criticized these attempts, and later they played a decisive role sharing their experience. Even though the squats did not last long, the demonstrations against police repression and the number of supporters for the people who were arrested from the squats show a cohesion of the anarchist space and brought attention to the political dimension of their actions (Souzas, 2014). The same period, the first attempt without luck was made to create a federation of anarchists (Meriziotis, 2015). In 1984, the European right groups met in Athens, and the first anti-fascist demonstration was organized by the radical left and anarchists’ groups something that escalated the tension (Souzas, 2014; Meriziotis, 2015). As a result, police started the operation ‘Areti’ (translation: Virtue, Greek: Αρετή) aiming to ‘clean’ the Exarchia square from the punks. In April 1985 and as the police operations in Exarchia continued, the anarchists and anti-authoritarians organized a demonstration against police repression (Souzas, 2014; Meriziotis, 2015). Police banned the demonstration and arrested the protestors while others occupied universities across the country demanding the release of those who have been arrested (Souzas, 2014; Meriziotis, 2015). In the winter of 1985 during the Polytechnic uprising anniversary (against the Greek military junta of 1967-1974) Kaltezas, a fifteen years old boy was killed by a police officer, named Melistas (Kalamaras, 2005; Souzas, 2014; Meriziotis, 2015). The violence was escalated once again, leading to the occupation of the Chemistry University in Athens and to a period which police repression and violent practices from the anarchists were an everyday reality (Souzas, 2014). The occupation of the university ends as police enter the building for the first time after the dictatorship despite the political asylum (Meriziotis, 2015).